Why Not Be Core?

I get the same response:

Me: You should vote for Ron Paul.
Them: But there's no way he's gonna win!
Me: Because people like you won't vote for him.

I registered Democrat. I'm not sure why- probably just because they made me pick when I was 18. I had no idea who Ron Paul was until you started writing about him, but it got me interested, and now I agree that he is the best candidate we've got. Keep spreading the word.

Score one for the libertarians

but will he help preserve our second amendment rights? i ask not just because i like guns, but because that amendment is the only amendment which we have violated time and time again. it raises questions of how long it will take for the government to realize that they have restricted our second amendment rights, they can get away with restricting our other amendments.

He will preserve our second amendment rights.

The second amendment is a collective right, not an individual right. It specifies it is a right of "the people," not the right of an individual. So, unless you're in a militia, you do not have second amendment rights.

Nor is it an absolute right. Note also that it is the only amendment which mentions regulation.

All you Ron Paul supporters should read the damn document if you're going to talk about it.

The Second Amendment is obviously a much more complex issue than that, Faith. Militias are no longer relevant in today's society, so the interpretation has been adapted. Wikipedia can give you a brief overview of the current debate.

Here's how the amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The people" is basically the plural of "person" (i.e. individual). It is used in other amendments as well.

i feel ya nate...

wenever i tell people about his coreness i get the same fuckin response...

but cheer up, there are many people out there who will listen to us about the greatness of the paulman.

i just hope wen the time comes he doesnt get assasinated... a very likely scenario if you look at history and the establishments way of doing anything it can to preserve the status quo... sigh

Court:

*sigh*

You are correct that militias are no longer relevant. That is, every since their function became served by the national guard. We're no longer really under threat of Indian attacks or bands of roving merauders on horseback. That was the original intent.

But here you're just wrong legally. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained the tie between guns and militias. In Cases v. US, the ruling (concerning the legality of sawed-off shotguns) maintains that:

"[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

And the Supreme Court is set to rule soon on the question of whether it is an individual right or a collective right. The view that "people" is merely the plural is on grammatically slippery turf. (Consider: teachers make more than doctors. True if we read teachers as a group, false if we do as individuals. Either reading is logically allowed).

There's dozens of other cases I could cite, if you're interested. I agree it is a complex issue. And I'll read constitutional law textbooks, thank you--not wikipedia.

Correction: US v. Miller, nor Cases.

That was my point, that it has not been ruled upon yet whether it's collective or individual, unlike your original comment which made it seem already determined.

Didn't mean to insult your intelligence with Wikipedia (or imply it is an intellectual authority), just figure it's an easy place to send people who generally wouldn't bother researching the subject otherwise.

Some of us enjoy reading ;)

Wait... you mean that y'all don't have to deal with roving horseback marauder bands?

Is... is it just me?

I really didnt mean to start a debate. I feel like the Founding Fathers were giving the citizens the tools to fight a government that becomes opressive when they wrote the second amendment. It bothers me that the government is now trying to interperet the wording of the constitiution in a way which would not give us this option. People may say that fewer guns mean fewer violent crimes, however, in every case of a government restricting the arms going to private citizens (Australia, Britain, ect) the violent crime rate rises. It makes me wonder, if we let our government take away our guns, what are they planning to do that would e so bad we would want our guns to overthrow them.

I'm with you Tyler; Although I also thought it had something to do with bears.